Emergency And Development Between Crime Prevention Criminology Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

The emergency and the development of both crime prevention and community safety have experienced a long history. According to Weatheritt (1986), there are 'two histories of crime prevention can be written'. The first history of crime prevention is achievement one, because of containing both theoretical support and institutional activities. Meanwhile, the officials praise crime prevention highly as the primary aim of policing. However, there is the other history of crime prevention:

the achievements are less impressive…… whatever the expressed commitment of senior police officers and successive governments to the view that prevention is the primary objective of policing, the crime prevention job remains an activity performed on the sidelines while the main action takes place elsewhere.(Weatheritt, 1986)

After the establishment of "new police" in 1829, which was primarily involved in a quest of legitimacy, the crime prevention was regarded as a pre-eminent function of policing and had become specially narrow in focus. Whereas, because of some inter-related reasons, for instance, some other cities outside London thought the crime prevention was inefficient and alien, so they were not persuaded by it; what is more, the model of crime prevention was costly, especially for those areas that are deprived and under population; and the growth of the preference for crime detection devalued the preventive work (Crawford, A, 1998), crime prevention, as Crawford (1998) suggested: "gradually slipped from its central place and was subsequently push to the margins of institutional public policing", declined with "grudging acceptance" in some areas around the world. Surprisingly, the period of the late 1950s and early 1960s is the "renaissance" of crime prevention. Until 1963, the Cornish committee was established to the prevention and detection of crime, which abundantly gained important recommendations. Although there still some problematic questions came up, such as: whose responsibility for what tasks? The use of informal control and wider responsibility results in new achievement. In the 1970s, under the Conservation Government, the Gladstone Report (1980) was in a important position, which supported government to conduct Crime Prevention. However, after nearly two decades of Conservation Government, New Labour was in power in 1997 with Crime and Disorder Act (1998), which resulted in setting up of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP). Community Safety, which argued in the Morgan Report (Home Office 1991), was required among Labour-controlled urban. Crime Prevention, in the report, was too narrow and irrelevant to many agencies, while Community Safety was more inclusive and effective (Gilling, D, 2007).

Although during the 1980s, the crime prevention is most usefully and effectively related to the practice of local crime control in UK (Gilling, D 2007), Community safety, which consists of the police, communities, local citizens and other experts, is becoming a international development and playing a vital role in both advanced and developing countries' policies. Although community safety has so many other constituents, there are some main characteristics of it. Firstly, what community safety care about are much wider than what the police do. It focus not only on the specific crimes, such as murder, rape and fraud, but also on the surroundings of crimes, for instance, a range of disorder and incivility. Therefore, community safety responds equally to more serious crimes and minor crimes, such as anti-social behaviour and regulatory offences. What is more, although there are some cases that reflect community safety is applied to the home, for the most part, it concerns more about crime, disorder and incivility in public space, and not within home. Secondly, what community safety concerns for is different from criminal justice agencies-legalistic. It is more efficient, effective and economic. Meanwhile, the way that control the crime is by prevention which is different from Pack's (1968) original description of crime control. Third, community safety, ideally, wants to build a well-ordered society that makes it more normative. Therefore, people in communities draw a clear distinction between rights and obligations, and also they require establishing a community with both freedom and security. Fourthly, the most important parts in community safety is partnership between center and local; public and private; especially between the police and community. After the reforming (2002), the police pay more attention on the community in order to rebuild the connection with citizens, and further, to decrease their fear of crime. However, communities have to cooperate, because it is inefficient to control the crime without the support of communities, meanwhile, the community can supervise whether the police effectively perform their duties. It is a foundation of setting up community safety. Fifthly, community safety contains several aspects, such as situational crime prevention, social crime prevention, crime and disorder reduction. So, the functions of it are flexible and more complete rather than just of the police, community or even other criminal justice agencies (Gilling, D 2001). In summery, according to Gilling (2007, p6), community safety is:

….taken here to present a progressive approach to local crime control that calls upon a partnership approach to provide a more holistic and democratic response to crime that combines situational and social crime prevention, and that, along with local crime problems, directs attention to the fear of crime and disorder as problems in their own right.